Jordan v. Semple et al
ORDER denying 8 Motion for Reconsideration. The case is DISMISSED for failure to pay the filing fee. Any motion to reopen shall be accompanied by the $400.00 filing fee and shall show cause why Mr. Jordan failed to comply with the Courts Order. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. Signed by Judge Victor A. Bolden on 7/7/2017. (Ghosh, S.)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
BRYAN A. JORDAN,
SCOTT SEMPLE, ET AL.,
Case No. 3:16-cv-1454 (VAB)
RULING ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Bryan A. Jordan (“Plaintiff”) is an inmate at the MacDougall-Walker Correctional
Institution in Suffield, Connecticut. On January 11, 2017, the Court denied Mr. Jordan’s motion
for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and notified him that his Complaint would be dismissed if
he did not submit the filing fee within twenty (20) days of the date of the Court’s Order. Mr.
Jordan did not deliver the filing fee to the Court within the time specified in the Order. Instead,
on February 17, 2017, Mr. Jordan moved for reconsideration of the Order.
As a preliminary matter, the motion for reconsideration is untimely. Under Rule 7(c), D.
Conn. L. Civ. R., a motion for reconsideration “shall be filed and served within seven (7) days of
the filing of the decision or order from which relief is sought.”1 The motion for reconsideration
was filed thirty-seven days after the Order denying his motion to proceed in forma pauperis.2
The prior version of Local Rule 7(c)(1) permitted a party fourteen days to file a motion for reconsideration. See
Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Century Indem. Co., No. 3:16-CV-170 (JCH), 2017 WL 88969, at *1 (D. Conn. Jan.
10, 2017) (citing prior version of Local Rule 7(c) (1) which required a motion for reconsideration to be filed and
served “within fourteen days of the filing of the decision or order from which relief is sought”). The Court revised
Local Rule 7 as of January 18, 2017. See Rule 7(c), D. Conn. L. Civ. R. amended January 18, 2017,
http://www.ctd.uscourts.gov/court-info/local-rules-and-orders. Of course, even under the prior version of Local
Rule 7(c)(1), the motion for reconsideration is untimely.
2 Although Mr. Jordan mentions that the facility in which he was incarcerated was on lockdown at one point and
suggests that the lockdown precluded him from responding to the Court’s order in a timely manner, he concedes that
he was able to make contact with and receive mail from the Inmate Legal Aid Program during this same time period.
Thus, the motion for reconsideration is denied as untimely.
Even if the motion were not untimely, Mr. Jordan has not demonstrated that the Court
erred in denying his motion to proceed in forma pauperis. “Motions for reconsideration shall not
be routinely filed and shall satisfy the strict standard applicable to such motions.” Rule 7(c), D.
Conn. L. Civ. R. Reconsideration will be granted only if the moving party can identify
“controlling decisions or data that the court overlooked” and that would “reasonably be expected
to alter” the Court’s decision. See Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995).
A motion for reconsideration may not be used to re-litigate an issue that the court has already
decided. See id.
In its Order, the Court noted that Mr. Jordan had over $400 in his inmate account and
received monthly deposits of $50, and therefore concluded paying the filing fee would not “force
him to forego the necessities of life or abandon this action.” See Ruling and Order, ECF No. 7,
1. In his motion, Mr. Jordan describes his “changed financial condition” and states that he no
longer has sufficient funds in his inmate account to pay the $400.00 filing fee. Mot. Recon.,
ECF No. 8 at 1. He claims that he no longer has a job, his family has not made deposits to his
inmate account for two months and he has approximately $300.00 in his inmate account. Id. at 2.
He also does not submit a revised application to proceed in forma pauperis, any evidence of the
deposits made to his inmate account over the last six months, or an updated copy of his Inmate
Trust Account. He has offered to send $150.00 to the Court towards payment of the filing fee.
Id. The Court cannot accept a partial payment of the filing fee.
In his motion, Mr. Jordan does not point to data that the Court overlooked when it denied
his motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Rather, he asserts that changes in circumstances would
See Mot. Recon., ECF No. 8 at 2-3.
justify a different result if Mr. Jordan had filed his motion today. Thus, the Court cannot
conclude that he is unable to pay the $400.00 filing fee. Accordingly, the motion for
reconsideration is denied.
For the reasons set forth above, the Motion for Reconsideration [ECF No. 8] is
DENIED. The case is DISMISSED for failure to pay the filing fee. Any motion to reopen shall
be accompanied by the $400.00 filing fee and shall show cause why Mr. Jordan failed to comply
with the Court’s Order. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.
SO ORDERED at Bridgeport, Connecticut this 7th day of July, 2017.
_/s/ Victor A. Bolden___________
VICTOR A. BOLDEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?